The U.S. Supreme Court case Geer v. Connecticut in 1895 revolved around the issue of state ownership and regulation of wildlife, specifically game birds. The plaintiff, Geer, was charged with violating a Connecticut law that prohibited the transportation of game birds out of state which were killed within its borders during open season. He argued that this law violated his rights under the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with interstate commerce and depriving him of property without due process respectively. However, the court upheld Connecticut's statute based on common-law principle known as "the public trust doctrine." This doctrine held that states have an inherent right to regulate natural resources within their boundaries for the benefit of their citizens because these resources are owned collectively by all residents rather than individually. Therefore, it ruled against Geer stating that he did not own those birds but merely had possession or custody over them until they were killed or captured; hence there was no violation in terms of deprivation without due process nor interference with interstate commerce since such laws serve legitimate local purposes related to conservation efforts.

In the dissenting opinion for Geer v. Connecticut, Justice Brewer argued that the state's ownership of wildlife was not absolute and did not allow it to prohibit interstate commerce in game birds. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of common law principles regarding state ownership of wild animals, asserting that these principles were meant to regulate hunting rights rather than establish complete control over wildlife resources. Furthermore, he contended that such a broad assertion of state power conflicted with federal authority over interstate commerce as established by the Constitution. In his view, once a hunter legally took possession of game within a state’s borders, they should be able to sell or transport it across state lines without interference from local laws.